Copenhagen summit Dec 7-18

U.S. pledges billions; China says climate pact is doubtful
Gallery
Leaders seek climate change agreement in Copenhagen
Leaders from around the world gather in Copenhagen Dec. 7-18 to forge a long-anticipated international agreement on climate change, while thousands of activists gather outside to make sure their voices are heard.


COPENHAGEN -- The United States pledged Thursday to help build a $100 billion annual fund by 2020 to help poor countries cope with climate change but said its commitment depends on whether the nations gathered here forge a substantive environmental pact that includes "transparency" on tracking emissions cuts.



Seeking to break through an impasse, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the historic talks must result in an international accord that includes emission reduction commitments from both developed and major developing countries; financial and technological assistance for poor countries; and a way to independently verify the cuts all nations made. Such language is essential to U.S. senators, who have yet to pass climate legislation and would have to ratify any future climate treaty.

Clinton warned that China -- which has resisted attempts for international verification of emission cuts and told officials here before Clinton spoke that a global pact seems unlikely -- must agree to monitoring if a deal is to be reached.

"We're running out of time," Clinton said at a news conference. "Without the accord, the opportunity to mobilize significant resources to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation will be lost."

An international agreement, Clinton added, would be impossible "in the absence of transparency from the second-biggest emitter" in the world -- in other words, China.

China told participants earlier Wednesday that it cannot envision reaching an immediate, operational accord out of the negotiations here, according to an official involved in the talks. Another source said Chinese officials are now seeking a two-page agreement. The source added that it is unclear what specifics such an agreement might contain, although "you can get a lot into two pages."

Developing countries have insisted they need to know how the industrialized world will help them adapt to climate change and curb their own emissions before signing off on a substantive deal.

The $100 billion annual fund would help poorer countries switch to less environmentally harmful forms of energy production and prepare for the impacts of rising seas and warmer global temperatures.

The administration's financial overture could spark some resistance in Congress, which controls federal spending through the appropriations process.

Clinton did not detail how much the U.S. would contribute. She said there were a number of financing options under consideration but would not provide details -- although environmental activists said they have been told by U.S. officials that part of the funding could come from the $60 billion in annual subsidies to fossil fuel industries that the G-20 nations have agreed to phase out.

The European Union has also committed to building a long-term, $100 billion fund, while Japan has committed $15 billion in short-term funding to poor countries over the next three years if an agreement is reached.

"One hundred billion dollars is a lot. It can have tangible effects," Clinton said, adding, "We have lost precious time in these past days. In the time we have left here, it can no longer be about us versus them -- this group of nations pitted against that group. We all face the same challenge together."

Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who met with U.S. representatives Wednesday morning, said the U.S. financing offer "demonstrates a seriousness on the part of the Americans" as world leaders continue to arrive in the Danish capital and attempt to hammer out their differences.

"A hundred billion is never enough," Ramesh said, "but it's a small step."

Ramesh said that India had offered the U.S. a four-point proposal on future rules for measuring, reporting and verifying developing countries' voluntary emission cuts, three points of which the Americans accept. The outstanding issue is whether third-party countries -- such as the United States -- could consult with the United Nations about the verification documents submitted by a given country -- such as India or China -- in order to verify that country's characterization of its greenhouse gas reductions.

"There's a path forward for these countries on this issue," said Jake Schmidt, who directs international climate policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, referring to major emerging economies such as China and India. "And I think it's important for these countries to have credibility to their actions."

Environmental advocates said the latest developments should help build momentum toward an accord -- though there is no way to know whether the momentum will be enough. As world leaders, top ministers and members of Congress huddled in closed-door meetings in the Bella Center, their technical staff worked on winnowing down a negotiating text that now numbers roughly two dozen pages.

"If the pieces are here, President Obama is the only person who can pull them together into an agreement," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "We expect him to do so."

Michael Levi, senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Obama administration is "taking a big risk" with its $100 billion announcement. "They appear to be betting that a good deal at Copenhagen will do more to help legislation on the Hill than this finance offer will hurt."

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who landed here Thursday morning along with 29 other House members, noted that some of the money pledged by Clinton is in the pipeline already, from the auctioning of pollution allowances to fund international forestry, adaptation and technology projects as part of the pending climate legislation. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates this funding would equal roughly $5 billion a year by 2020.

Compromise on money

Developing countries had previously spurned the $100 billion figure as too low. But in a moment that distilled the diplomatic dance underway here, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi -- who is representing all of Africa here -- said Wednesday that he would accept $30 billion a year in the short term, rising to $50 billion a year by 2015 and $100 billion a year by 2020, for poor countries worldwide.

"It is no exaggeration that this is our best, and perhaps our last, chance to save our planet from destructive and unpredictable change," Zenawi said. "If we fail to rise above the current challenge of climate change, we will then have proved that global economic progress is based on a fundamentally dysfunctional political system."

Even before the United Nations-led talks began, it was clear they would not deliver what environmental groups had initially hoped for: a global treaty on climate change, with high-emitting countries formally pledging to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions in the coming decades.
ad_icon

Instead, the goal was to sign a "political agreement," in which nations would pledge to tackle emissions but without making a binding commitment under international law. The understanding was that a formal treaty would come in 2010.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that it is typical of global conferences that some differences remain when heads of state arrive. Obama, who has made phone calls this week to the leaders of developed nations such as Germany and France and developing countries such as Bangladesh and Ethiopia, will be joining 118 other world leaders in the Danish capital.


"I think you've seen in some ways people say that . . . some of this is just going to get hashed out when leaders of these countries get here to start hashing it out," Gibbs said. "I think that's in many ways how some of this stuff happens. And I don't think that, in all honesty, that'll be a lot different here."

Points of contention

Rich and developing countries have also clashed over the starting point for the climate debate.

The European Union, Japan, Australia, Russia and Canada want to scrap the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, because the United States and China did not join in its pledges to cut emissions, and start with a new document. But a bloc of poorer countries wants to make the next agreement a formal sequel to the one in Kyoto, which binds most developed countries to emission cuts and provides some financing for poor ones.

On Wednesday, many developing countries walked out of negotiations over that disagreement. Selwin Hart, a delegate from Barbados and a member of what the United Nations calls the Group of 77, even though it boasts 130 countries, said the Kyoto deal offers "legal certainty" that industrialized countries will keep cutting their carbon dioxide output.

The G-77 has played a significant role in shaping the debate here. But as the conference moves closer to a deal, serious fissures have erupted inside this group.

The oil-producing countries of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Sudan have pressed for some kind of compensation if a global crackdown on carbon dioxide emissions puts a crimp on their exports. China, trying to hold on to its "developing" status despite its rise as a global power, has opposed the idea of incorporating its voluntary climate targets in an international agreement.

And Bolivian President Evo Morales told delegates Wednesday that rich countries should pay climate "reparations" and that the world should try to limit warming to less than the 3.6-degree rise that other leaders have agreed to.

"End the slavery of Mother Earth," Morales said at a news conference. "She's now the slave of capitalist countries."

Protests dwindle

Thursday saw smaller, more peaceful demonstrations than the violent protests a day earlier that drew tear gas, pepper spray and police batons. But Climate Justice Action, the environmental movement organizing the protests, warned that larger protests could resume Friday, when the conference concludes.

"Whatever they do, it is not going to be enough, and the groups here may spontaneously take to the streets again in large numbers once they see what the leaders have come up with," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for the group.

Staff writers David A. Fahrenthold in Washington contributed to this report.